Claimant v Barclays Bank UK PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the investigation was insufficiently thorough, the credibility assessment asymmetrical and flawed, charges expanded from 3 to 5 without notice, and excessive delay occurred. The respondent failed to carry out reasonable investigation and did not have reasonable grounds for belief in guilt. The procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The appeal did not correct these defects. Overall, no reasonable employer could have dismissed in those circumstances.
Facts
Claimant, a Financial Guide employed by Barclays since 2015, was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly making inappropriate sexual comments to a younger female colleague in November 2023. The allegations included asking 'If I show you my willy, will that make us friends?', suggesting she buy sexy underwear, and asking about age-appropriate dating. The claimant admitted one remark about age but denied the other allegations. Following investigation and a disciplinary hearing with significant delays (over 4 months), he was dismissed in July 2024. An unsuccessful appeal followed.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to serious procedural flaws: the investigation was insufficiently thorough given the high stakes; the credibility assessment was asymmetrical (testing the claimant more rigorously than the complainant); charges expanded from 3 to 5 without proper notice; and there was excessive unexplained delay. The appeal did not rectify these defects. However, the tribunal found the claimant contributed to his dismissal by making one inappropriate remark (15% reduction) and that a fair procedure had a 50% chance of resulting in dismissal (Polkey reduction).
Practical note
In serious misconduct cases where credibility is contested, employers must interview key witnesses directly, rigorously test both incriminating and exculpatory evidence, provide clear notice of all charges before the disciplinary hearing, and avoid procedural defects that cannot be cured on appeal.
Adjustments
50% chance that the respondent would have dismissed by the same date if it had acted fairly. While a fair investigation might have produced different findings on the credibility of witnesses, and dismissal was not inevitable, the tribunal found a 50% likelihood that fair dismissal would have resulted around the same time.
Claimant made one inappropriate remark of a sexual nature ('what's the youngest a 40-year-old can go with?') which was reckless, inconsistent with well-publicised policies, and liable to make younger female colleagues uncomfortable. However, the two more serious allegations were not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8002162/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Financial Guide
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No